Sample Flow Charts

You should have taken notes today during the presentation. For a few of my favorites, see the following.

In a rhetorical, argumentative paper you have to be persuasive, which means you must include and present information to your audience that will encourage your audience to agree with you. This tension—created between an author (you) that wishes to persuade and the audience who must be persuaded—must be at the forefront of what/how you put your argument together. The common ground we (the persuaders and persuaded) share is reason. (Duffin, 1998).

What kinds of examples you include, style of language you use and when and how you get your reader to embrace your reasons are all chief concerns of the argument writer. How do we arrange this information? I’ve said that I don’t believe a concrete outline helps many of us. However, knowing some common rhetorical methods will help and employing a general flow chart will help (1998, Kathy Duffin, The Writing Center at Harvard University, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/Overvu.html).

FLOW CHART 1 Building common ground.

In the Rogerian method of argumentation. You build the common ground between you readers and yourself, never giving away your thesis until the very end. Tricky, yes. Useful, probably. This was developed by Carl Rogers, a psychologist, and is useful for emotionally charged topics.

The purpose of a Rogerian argument is to find the common ground held by the author and audience regarding an issue or problem. The authors explores the audience’s POV and must present the audience's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly before asking them to consider an alternative position or solution.

This method downplays emotional appeals is a must for emotionally charged, highly divisive issues and allows for people of good will on different sides of an issue to find, or agree upon, solutions together.

Here’s a sample flow chart (taken from writing.colostate.edu):

Introduction: A problem is presented, typically pointing out how both writer and reader are affected by the problem. Rather than presenting an issue that divides reader and writer, or a thesis that demands agreement the Rogerian argument does not begin with the writer's position at all. The thesis is withheld.

Then: The Audience Perspective. Described as clearly and accurately as possible-typically in neutral language-the author acknowledges their point of view and the circumstances and contexts in which their perspective or position is valid. Done well, the author builds good will and credibility with the audience, a crucial step leading toward potential compromise. Honest, heartfelt sincerity is the key here: if the audience perceives an attempt at manipulation, the Rogerian argument strategy generally backfires. This segment depends, again, on neutral but clear language so that the reader perceives the fair-mindedness of the writer's description.

Then: The author's perspective comes in the next chunk of the argument. For the audience to give it a listen it must be presented in as fair-minded a way as was theirs, in language as equally neutral and clear. To be convincing, besides describing the circumstances or contexts in which the position is valid, it must contain the evidence that supports the claim

Conclusion: The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give up their own positions on the problem but by showing how the reader would benefit from moving toward the writer's position. In other words, the final section of the Rogerian argument lays out possible ways to compromise. (fromwriting.colostate.edu/guides/documents/arguedraft)

FLOW CHART 2
Deductive Reasoning
This is a direct quote of a page at:
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/documents/arguedraft/deductive.cfm

The traditional academic argument is deductive, placing the author's position in the introduction and devoting the rest of the argument to presenting the evidence. Unless you are in a field where inductive reasoning is the norm, you can hardly go wrong with this method.

In some cases, all the evidence may be directed at proving the main point; in others, each piece may lead to a sub-point that needs proving before a convincing argument for the main point can be made. Depending on how directly each piece of evidence relates to the position, a deductive argument can be organized in a variety of ways.

* Introduction establishing the context of the argument as well as the author's position.
* Body of Evidence presented, depending on the audience analysis, from most to least, or least to most convincing.
* Conclusion summarizing the argument, presenting a call to action, or suggesting further research.

An argument supporting a ban on logging in rain forests might first need to establish and provide evidence regarding five other environmental premises, each supporting the author's position, regarding the effects of logging. For instance:

• It causes soil erosion
• It affects global warming
• It destroys native species
• It alters water routes and levels
• It destroys indigenous lifestyles

Each premise is a debatable issue in and of itself. Therefore, some measure of the supportive evidence behind each-at least enough to connect them as reasonably evidentiary links-must be given before they can be used to collectively support the author's main position. In these cases, arguments are typically arranged as follows:

• Introduction establishing the context of the argument as well as the author's position.
• Brief Preview outlining each premise, or reason, to be used as evidence supporting the claim.
• Body of Evidence presented, depending on audience analysis, in an order that will make the most sense to the audience.
• Conclusion summarizing the argument and demonstrating how each premise leads logically to the author's position, presents a call to action, or suggests further research.

When opposing arguments are particularly strong and readily accepted, discrediting them point-by-point may be the best strategy for convincing an audience to consider alternative points or support a different position.

• Introduction
• Rebut first opposing argument followed by first counter-argument
• Rebut next opposing arguments, followed by further counter-arguments as you go along
• Conclusion

FLOW CHART 3
Inductive Reasoning

This is a direct quote from: CSU Writing Center at writing.colostate.edu/guides/index.cfm?guides_active=argument&category1=31
Inductive Reasoning

When an audience completely disagrees with your position convincing them that their reasons for disagreeing are faulty before presenting your own position may be the best strategy.

Introduction: States the issue to be addressed and why it is important.

Body of Argument: Examines positions already proposed and refutes each one, showing why they are inadequate. Typically organized like this.

• Position 1
• Your refutation of position 1
• Position 2
• Your refutation of position 2

Alternatively, all positions might be examined first and then refuted second.

• Position 1
• Position 2
• Your refutation of position 1
• Your refutation of position 2

Conclusion/Position Statement: Once all other positions are shown to be inadequate, conclude with your position as the only logical choice. This is where you argue your point. At the end. Hah. See I told you sometimes you hold off on your thesis until the audience is good and ready to hear it.

When an audience partially disagrees with your position, the best strategy still looks a great deal like when they completely disagree: convincing them that their reasoning is faulty before presenting your own position.

Introduction: States the issue to be addressed and why it is important.

Body of Argument: Examines positions already proposed and refutes each one, showing why they are inadequate. Typically organized like this.

* Position 1
* Your refutation of position 1
* Position 2
* Your refutation of position 2

Alternatively, all positions might be examined first and then refuted second.

* Position 1
* Position 2
* Your refutation of position 1
* Your refutation of position 2

Position Statement: Introduced as the only logical choice after the positions your audience finds most persuasive are shown to be inadequate.

Presentation of Evidence: Supports your position as not only reasonable, but the best one available as well.